mutable keyword
Jack Applegame via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Mon May 23 01:19:52 PDT 2016
On Sunday, 22 May 2016 at 13:08:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Given how const and immutable work in D, having any portion of
> them be treated as mutable, becomes highly problematic. It
> could theoretically be done by having to mark such variables
> with an attribute and mark such types with a similar attribute
> so that the compiler knows that the type in question is not
> really following the rules of const or immutable and thus
> doesn't make any assumptions about it like it would normally,
> but it risks getting rather complicated, and Walter is most
> definitely not in favor of such an idea. He is absolutely
> adamant that const is useless unless it's fully const with no
> backdoors whatsoever. So, I'd be very surprised if any kind of
> @mutable were added to the language. Certainly, you'd have to
> have a very strong technical reason to convince him otherwise,
> and odds are that he's just going to tell you to not use const,
> if it's not going to work for the type to be const.
Ha-ha. All this does not prevent immutable class to have mutable
monitor. Why D so often violates its own rules?
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list